If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message thlink.net... You're viewing the note "ADF REQUIRED" as having legal authority. I view it as just a reminder that ADF is needed to fly the full approach, the missed approach segment in this case. This isn't the first time this matter has been discussed in this forum. As I recall from previous discussions, nobody was able to present any definitive documentation in support of either view. But logic tends to support the view that these notes are just reminders to the pilot. Take a look at most LOC BC approaches and you'll find a similar note that says "BACK COURSE". Is that a legal requirement that a back course receiver must be aboard to fly the approach, or is it just a reminder of reverse sensing? Of course its a requirement, that's why the word "required" is used. You can use a GPS in substitute, but one or the other is required. "Radar required" is also a frequently found note. Do you think that if the radar is inop that day you can still shoot the approach because it was "just a reminder"? Paul Steichen CFI, CFII, MEI, CRJ FO |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Butler wrote: Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Gig Giacona" wrote in message ... So this means I will need to install and ADF in the plane I'm building in order to use the ILS approach? Not necessarily. GPS can substitute for ADF and ATC can sometimes issue alternate missed approach instructions. I think the alternate missed approach instructions still don't relieve the pilot of the requirement to have all the equipment mentioned in the title of the approach chart. Of course, no enforcement action unless there's an incident. The naming convention in TERPS was changed about 3 years ago to shorten titles, so that they fit better in RNAV databases. Thus, what is required for an ILS approach, for instance, is what is implied by the title and what is stated by any equipment notes, such as "ADF required," etc. Formerly, when DME was mandatory on an ILS approach the title would be ILS/DME, but for any auch approach revised in the past couple of years, or in the future it will state ILS in the title, then there will be an equipment note "DME required." And, alternate missed approach procedures are not charted, thus generally known only to the ATC facility, when they even exist. Even if a pilot knew such alternate missed approach procedure existed, it is not a reality unless the controlling ATC facility assigns it once you're in their airspace and under their control. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Dave Butler" wrote in message ... Oh, right, sorry. I lost sight of the original premise, an ILS with ADF REQUIRED. So what I should have said was: "I think the alternate missed approach instructions still don't relieve the pilot of the requirement for carrying an ADF as explicitly stated on the approach chart." You're viewing the note "ADF REQUIRED" as having legal authority. I view it as just a reminder that ADF is needed to fly the full approach, the missed approach segment in this case. This isn't the first time this matter has been discussed in this forum. As I recall from previous discussions, nobody was able to present any definitive documentation in support of either view. But logic tends to support the view that these notes are just reminders to the pilot. Take a look at most LOC BC approaches and you'll find a similar note that says "BACK COURSE". Is that a legal requirement that a back course receiver must be aboard to fly the approach, or is it just a reminder of reverse sensing? You're entitled to your view, of course. But, the "ADF REQUIRED" note is a procedural data equipment note issued as part of an amendment to 14 CFR 97. If in doubt, all the manager of AVN-100 and ask him whether the note is advisory in nature. Also, AFS-400 many have a view somewhat different than your's. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Borchert wrote: Rich, Wait! He can use a GPS in place of the ADF on that approach. Isn't that correct? I think so. But: Does the GPS need to be certified? If so (and I think so), does it need to be approach certified or is enroute sufficient? IFR certified, but approach certification is not required. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"unknown" wrote in message news Of course its a requirement, that's why the word "required" is used. Can you present any definitive documentation in support of that view? What requirement does the note "BACK COURSE" on a LOC BC approach present? "Radar required" is also a frequently found note. Do you think that if the radar is inop that day you can still shoot the approach because it was "just a reminder"? I think if the radar is inop that day I won't be cleared for any approach that requires radar. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... You're entitled to your view, of course. But, the "ADF REQUIRED" note is a procedural data equipment note issued as part of an amendment to 14 CFR 97. Can you cite a source for that? If in doubt, all the manager of AVN-100 and ask him whether the note is advisory in nature. Also, AFS-400 many have a view somewhat different than your's. I'm not looking for another opinion, I'm looking for something definitive. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
a) FAA 8260.19 is a source document for what I think you are looking for
(Including changes 1 & 2) http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...s/8260.19C.pdf b) Policy 01022, Documentation of Radar Requirements on Instrument Approach Procedures http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Policies1/TIL01022.pdf 1) "ADF Required" - Par 814-h -- on an ILS, most likely a NDB is used for the missed approach 2) "RADAR Required" - Par 814-g, and TILS 01022 -- What I have seen is that the IAF is defined off of the localizer beam at some specific DME/crossing radial, or again, required for the missed Cheers On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:34:13 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "unknown" wrote in message news Of course its a requirement, that's why the word "required" is used. Can you present any definitive documentation in support of that view? What requirement does the note "BACK COURSE" on a LOC BC approach present? "Radar required" is also a frequently found note. Do you think that if the radar is inop that day you can still shoot the approach because it was "just a reminder"? I think if the radar is inop that day I won't be cleared for any approach that requires radar. -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"AJNOKC" wrote in message newsprs5pg1vbg62b0q@localhost... a) FAA 8260.19 is a source document for what I think you are looking for (Including changes 1 & 2) http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Directi...s/8260.19C.pdf b) Policy 01022, Documentation of Radar Requirements on Instrument Approach Procedures http://av-info.faa.gov/terps/Policies1/TIL01022.pdf 1) "ADF Required" - Par 814-h -- on an ILS, most likely a NDB is used for the missed approach 2) "RADAR Required" - Par 814-g, and TILS 01022 -- What I have seen is that the IAF is defined off of the localizer beam at some specific DME/crossing radial, or again, required for the missed Thank you. That explains how these notes appear on the plates, and suggests why "ADF REQUIRED" appears on plates that can be flown completely without ADF. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
The perfect approach | Capt.Doug | Home Built | 25 | December 3rd 04 03:37 AM |
Which aircraft certification is required for R&D? | Netgeek | Home Built | 5 | November 23rd 04 05:59 AM |
LSA Approach speeds | Ace Pilot | Home Built | 0 | February 3rd 04 05:38 PM |
Download approach charts | Ron Natalie | Home Built | 0 | July 9th 03 08:29 PM |